Apply a Function-Based Approach to Assess and Improve Supervisee Behavior
If you supervise behavior technicians, clinicians, or other ABA staff, you’ve probably faced this frustration: a supervisee knows how to do something, you’ve trained them, but they’re still not doing it consistently. Before you add more oversight hours or issue a corrective action, consider whether you’re looking at the problem the right way. A function-based approach to supervision shifts your focus from what the behavior looks like to why it’s happening—and that shift changes everything about how you respond.
This article is written for BCBAs, clinic directors, senior RBTs, and anyone responsible for supervising others in ABA settings. By the end, you’ll understand how to use a function-based lens to pinpoint the real barriers to performance, design interventions that actually work, and maintain ethical, respectful supervision even when performance problems are serious.
What Is a Function-Based Approach to Supervision?
In ABA, we know that all behavior serves a purpose. Your supervisee’s behavior is no exception. A function-based approach means investigating why a behavior occurs—what it accomplishes in context—rather than focusing only on what it looks like or how often it happens.
Here’s the key difference: Topography is the form of the behavior (leaving early, skipping data entry, interrupting). Function is what that behavior gets the person (escape from a difficult task, attention, access to something preferred).
When you address topography without understanding function, your interventions often fail or create new problems. When you match your intervention to the actual function, supervisees change not just their form but their underlying patterns.
In a workplace context, a supervisee’s “problem behavior” might be missing data entry deadlines, noncompliance with a directive, chronic absenteeism, or poor fidelity during client sessions. A function-based approach asks: What need is this behavior meeting? Is the staff member avoiding something? Seeking attention? Lacking a skill? Facing environmental barriers?
Once you know, you can design a real solution instead of just punishing the surface behavior.
The Core Process: From Data to Intervention
Function-based supervision follows a logical sequence. You start with a clear picture of what’s happening, collect data to see patterns, form a testable hypothesis, and then design an intervention matched to that hypothesis.
Step 1: Define the target behavior clearly. Instead of “poor attendance” or “lazy,” describe what you actually observe: “Arrives 10 or more minutes late on high-demand days” or “Fails to record data within 10 minutes of session end.” Observable, measurable definitions let you collect reliable data and track whether changes actually happen.
Step 2: Collect baseline data. Before you change anything, you need to know the current pattern. How often does this behavior occur? What typically happens right before it? What happens right after? A baseline might take a few days to a few weeks, depending on how often the behavior occurs.
Step 3: Form a hypothesis about function. Using your data, ask: What is this behavior achieving? Common workplace functions include escape (avoiding a difficult task or feedback), attention (getting supervisor notice), access to preferred activities or resources, or automatic reinforcement (self-generated regulation). Your hypothesis doesn’t have to be perfect; it just needs to be testable.
Step 4: Test your hypothesis. If you think the behavior is escape-driven, you might adjust task demands or teach a replacement skill and watch whether the behavior decreases. If you think it’s attention-seeking, you might provide scheduled attention for on-task behavior and see whether the interruptions drop. Small changes that directly test your hypothesis are far more valuable than broad interventions.
Step 5: Implement a matched intervention. Once your hypothesis has support, design an intervention that removes or reduces the function—or teaches a better way to achieve it. This might mean changing antecedents, teaching new skills, adjusting consequences, or a combination of all three.
Step 6: Monitor and adjust. Collect data during the intervention phase and compare it to baseline. If the supervisee is improving, you’re on the right track. If not, reconsider your hypothesis and try a different approach. Document what you tried, what worked, and what didn’t.
Understanding Behavioral Functions in the Workplace
Not every performance problem looks the same, and not every problem has the same root cause. Here are the functions you’re most likely to see in supervision settings.
Escape or avoidance occurs when a behavior helps someone get away from or delay a demanding, unpleasant, or anxiety-provoking task. A technician who leaves sessions early during high-demand tasks, a supervisee who procrastinates on detailed documentation, or a staff member who calls in sick on days with difficult client assignments—all are potentially escape-motivated. If relief follows the behavior, that function is being reinforced.
Attention-seeking happens when a supervisee’s behavior generates supervisor notice or feedback. This includes repeatedly asking questions, interrupting with jokes, or creating small conflicts. If the behavior intensifies when you’re busy or decreases when you provide scheduled, contingent attention, you’re likely looking at an attention function.
Access to tangibles or preferred activities is straightforward: the supervisee wants a tool, schedule, resource, or task that the behavior helps them obtain. Demanding a particular software, refusing assignments until granted a break schedule, or redirecting conversations to preferred topics all fit here.
Automatic or sensory reinforcement is subtler. The behavior itself provides internal input that feels regulating or rewarding. Fidgeting during a tense supervision session, doodling while taking notes, or humming during difficult tasks can all serve this function. This function is least dependent on what others do in response.
In real supervision work, a single behavior often has multiple functions, and different supervisees may display the same topography for different reasons. That’s precisely why data collection and hypothesis testing matter.
Skill Deficit Versus Performance Deficit
Before you decide on an intervention, you need to separate two very different problems: Can’t do (skill deficit) from won’t do (performance deficit).
A supervisee with a skill deficit genuinely lacks the knowledge or ability to perform the task correctly. Even with high motivation and lots of reinforcement, they can’t meet the standard. This person needs direct teaching, modeling, role-play, and clear feedback until they master the skill.
A supervisee with a performance deficit has the skill but isn’t using it consistently. They might perform correctly during a competency check but fail to implement the procedure during regular client sessions. Or they might implement well with one client but not another. This pattern suggests the issue isn’t knowledge—it’s motivation, environmental barriers, or competing contingencies.
Here’s the practical takeaway: if you’re unsure which type you’re facing, observe across settings. Does the supervisee perform the skill anywhere? If yes, it’s likely a performance deficit. If no—if they can’t execute even under ideal conditions—you’re probably looking at a skill deficit and need more training.
Real-World Examples in ABA Settings
Example 1: Early Session Exits and Missing Data
A behavior technician leaves sessions early during high-demand tasks and fails to record data afterward. Your baseline shows she leaves during tasks with many rapid demands and minimal breaks. Supervisor feedback often happens when she leaves, so your hypothesis is that the behavior is escape-driven—she’s getting away from the demanding task and from the correction that typically follows.
Your function-matched intervention includes three pieces. First, you teach her a break-request procedure so she has a legitimate way to escape excessive demand. Second, you modify task demands by analyzing the flow, adding breaks, and gradually increasing difficulty. Third, you provide positive pre-session reminders and private, supportive coaching after she completes work, rather than waiting to give feedback after she’s left.
Within two weeks, her on-task percentage increases and data completion improves. The intervention worked because it addressed the actual function: it gave her a socially acceptable way to manage demands and removed the aversive consequence that was originally paired with staying.
Example 2: Attention-Seeking Interruptions
A supervisee repeatedly interrupts your training sessions to ask questions or make comments. The frequency increases when you’re focused on your work. Your hypothesis is attention-seeking: she’s learned that interruptions work to pull your focus.
Your function-matched plan includes providing her with a scheduled 15-minute check-in twice a week so she knows when to expect your attention. During your regular sessions, you ignore or briefly redirect non-urgent interruptions and deliberately catch her engaging in on-task behavior and praise it. Within three weeks, interrupt frequency drops significantly, and the quality of her work improves.
Both examples share a pattern: you identified the function, designed an intervention that addressed the actual need, and the behavior changed as a result.
Common Mistakes and Misconceptions
Supervisors often make these missteps when first learning a function-based approach.
Changing consequences before collecting baseline data. You’re eager to fix the problem, so you increase oversight or implement a reward system right away. Without baseline data, you can’t tell whether your intervention actually caused any change. Data collection takes time but saves you from wasted effort.
Confusing topography with function. You focus on stopping the exact form of the behavior instead of understanding why it’s happening. The supervisee might simply find a different way to escape. When you address function, the underlying motivation decreases and behavior change lasts.
Over-relying on punishment without teaching replacements. Punishment might suppress a behavior temporarily, but without addressing the function, the supervisee will likely find another way to meet that need. Function-based support is more humane and more durable.
Assuming all performance problems are due to lack of skill. Not every problem is fixed with more training. Many performance deficits reflect context, motivation, or competing contingencies. Observing whether the supervisee can do the task in some settings saves you from training someone in something they already know.
Ethical Considerations in Function-Based Supervision
Using function-based methods puts you in a powerful position. You’re collecting data on supervisee behavior and using it to shape their actions. That power demands careful ethical practice.
Respect dignity and collaboration. Involve supervisees in goal-setting and let them understand the plan. Explain that you’re using a function-based approach to identify barriers, not to judge or shame them. Transparent communication protects the supervisory relationship and increases buy-in.
Maintain confidentiality. Keep supervisee data secure and share it only with authorized staff. Use objective language when documenting sensitive issues and store records securely.
Protect client care. Any intervention targeting supervisee behavior must not harm the clients you serve together. Monitor both supervisee metrics and client outcomes.
Use objective documentation. Record the behaviors you observe, the data you collect, and the decisions you make. Avoid subjective judgments (“lazy,” “careless”) and focus on measurable performance.
Avoid coercion and manipulation. Function information is not a tool for making someone compliant through psychological pressure. Use it to teach, adjust context, and reinforce better choices—not to trap or shame.
Putting It Into Practice: A Quick Checklist
If you’re ready to apply a function-based approach with a supervisee, here’s how to get started.
- Define the target behavior in clear, observable terms. What exactly does the supervisee do or fail to do?
- Collect baseline data for at least a few occurrences or a short time window. Note when the behavior happens, what comes before it, and what follows.
- Hypothesize the function. Ask: What is this behavior achieving? What need might it be meeting?
- Design a small test. Change one thing that matches your hypothesis and watch whether the behavior shifts.
- If your test supports your hypothesis, design a full intervention plan. If it doesn’t, reconsider your hypothesis.
- Implement with consistency and collect progress data regularly.
- Adjust based on data. If the supervisee is improving, stay the course and fade supports gradually. If not, return to your data and consider a different hypothesis.
- Document everything. Record what you tried, what changed, and what the outcome was.
Key Takeaways
A function-based approach to supervision means asking why before deciding how to respond. It requires data collection, hypothesis testing, and interventions matched to the actual function of the behavior—not just its form. This approach is more humane, more effective, and more ethical than topography-focused or purely punitive methods.
The real power of function-based supervision is that it moves you from reacting to problems toward solving them. When you know why a supervisee is struggling, you can design a real solution. You can teach skills when skills are the barrier. You can adjust context when environment is the issue. You can provide support when motivation is flagging. And because your interventions address the root cause, change tends to stick.
Ethical practice means keeping supervisees’ dignity at the center, collaborating transparently, and documenting your work. It also means staying humble: your first hypothesis might be wrong, and your first intervention might not work. That’s not failure—that’s good science and good supervision.
When you commit to understanding the why behind supervisee behavior, you build a team that performs better and feels respected.
